Questions
Which themes appear in both sources?
What new information have surveys added beyond what was already written in the literature?
How do themes vary between fishing vs. shipping contexts?
How do themes vary with positionality of the respondent (surveys only)?
Result 1: Bridges and barriers according to review and survey
Here I’ve presented three options for presenting the themes and sub-themes identified in the review and surveys. I’d love feedback on which option or combination of options best visualize the codes! Depending on your feedback, I’ll then spend time cleaning up the best option.
Option 1 - Sankey diagram
Plot below only presents the review themes and sub-themes. If this is the best way to communicate the codes, I will add a diagram visualizing the survey codes.
# A tibble: 2 × 2
bridge_barr totals
<chr> <int>
1 Barrier 201
2 Bridge 509
# A tibble: 6 × 2
code_cat totals
<chr> <int>
1 Data barrier 86
2 Data bridge 173
3 Ecological barrier 13
4 Ecological bridge 141
5 Social barrier 102
6 Social bridge 195
Option 3 - Table
| Data bridge |
Management scale aligns with system needs |
| Data bridge |
Target species data availability |
| Data bridge |
Access to advanced technology and techniques |
| Data bridge |
Data transparency |
| Data bridge |
Abiotic data availability |
| Data bridge |
Resource use data availability |
| Social bridge |
Resource availability |
| Social bridge |
Pre-existing conditions |
| Social bridge |
Adoption incentives |
| Social bridge |
Feasibility |
| Social bridge |
Co-management and communication |
| Ecological bridge |
Expected climate change induced range shifts |
| Ecological bridge |
Distinct habitat preferences |
| Ecological bridge |
Biotic indicators of target species presence |
| Ecological bridge |
Abiotic indicators of target species presence |
| Ecological bridge |
Highly mobile target species |
| Ecological bridge |
Life history information available for target species |
| Ecological bridge |
Fine-scale management appropriate for target species |
| Data barrier |
Gaps and inaccuracy |
| Data barrier |
Management scales do not align with system needs |
| Data barrier |
Model abuse |
| Ecological barrier |
Need for multispecies management |
| Data barrier |
Climate change adding uncertainty to target species habitat use |
| Social barrier |
Indirect socioeconomic consequences |
| Social barrier |
Discontinuity |
| Social barrier |
Poor communication and outreach |
| Social barrier |
Poor program implementation |
| Social barrier |
Cost |
| Implementation bridge |
Behavior change |
| Implementation bridge |
Regulated program |
| Implementation bridge |
Volunteer based program |
| Implementation bridge |
Simplicity |
| Implementation bridge |
Online presence |
| Implementation bridge |
Tailored to user group |
| Implementation bridge |
Clear objectives |
| Implementation bridge |
Communication mechanisms |
| Social bridge |
Fleet buy-in |
| Social bridge |
External factors increasing participation |
| Social bridge |
Communication and transparency |
| Social bridge |
Adoption incentives |
| Social bridge |
Observable progress |
| Implementation bridge |
Program outreach |
| Social bridge |
Co-management |
| Data bridge |
Rapid data delivery |
| Ecological bridge |
Distinct habitat preferences |
| Ecological bridge |
Predictable spatial use |
| Implementation barrier |
Difficulty assessing impact |
| Implementation barrier |
Limited relevance |
| Data barrier |
Missing cross-program comparisons |
| Data barrier |
Gaps and inaccuracy |
| Data barrier |
Lack of near real-time data |
| Ecological barrier |
Unpredictable bycatch patterns |
| Social barrier |
Cost |
| Social barrier |
Discontinuity |
| Social barrier |
Confidentiality |
| Social barrier |
Lack of incentives |
| Social barrier |
Volunteer programs reduce participation |
| Social barrier |
Regulated programs reduce participation |
| Social barrier |
External factors reducing participation |
| Social barrier |
Poor communication and outreach |
| Social barrier |
Interest-holder conflicts |
| Social barrier |
Stigmatization |
Result 2: Codes by review and survey
Result 2.1: Frequencies according to review and survey
Code appearance frequencies across all bridge OR barrier codes. The proportions reported in these figures represent the percent of codes that theme or sub-theme comprises.
{fig-align=“center” width=“10in”, height = “12in”}
{fig-align=“center” width=“10in”, height = “12in”}
Result 2.2: Time series of top theme from literature, co-management
Grey is the number of DOM publications per year, while blue is the number of times co-management and communication was referenced. Whanted to see if this code was referenced more over time, but seems that it just tracks the number of DOM publications. Likely won’t include.
Result 2.3: Heat maps of theme co-occurence
This heatmap represents number of times two codes co-occurered together in the same article, or “theme co-occurence”. I have filtered totals greater than or equal to 11, which was the 90% quantile of the co-occurrence total data set. Blue text represents data bridges and barriers, grey text represents ecological bridges and barriers, and orange text represents social bridges and barriers.
{fig-align=“center” width=“10in”, height = “8in”}
Result 3: Variations by industry
3.1: Management and conservation problems DOM has been used to address
3.2: Fishing vs. shipping
{fig-align=“center” width=“5in”, height = “8in”}
{fig-align=“center” width=“5in”, height = “8in”}
Result 4: Variations by position (survey only)
{fig-align=“center” width=“8in”, height = “6in”}